Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 3.81.29.226

Forum Moderators: open

Message Too Old, No Replies

And then there was 1

     
3:38 pm on Feb 25, 2003 (gmt 0)

Administrator from US 

WebmasterWorld Administrator brett_tabke is a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member Top Contributors Of The Month

joined:Sept 21, 1999
posts:38257
votes: 115


Well Google - you are it. The undisputed last free inclusion search engine on the net.

Look around the console there for 2 buttons: one marked ipo, and one marked update - push 'em both.

3:39 pm on Feb 25, 2003 (gmt 0)

Senior Member

WebmasterWorld Senior Member tigger is a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member

joined:July 16, 2000
posts:3560
votes: 0


Let's hope it lasts :)
3:41 pm on Feb 25, 2003 (gmt 0)

Junior Member

10+ Year Member

joined:Jan 20, 2003
posts:146
votes: 0


surely is google go public it'll be about shareholders wanting money for their investments.

Surely, a commercial business model for search engine is *not* in the interests of consumers?

3:47 pm on Feb 25, 2003 (gmt 0)

Senior Member

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member

joined:Oct 23, 2002
posts:1052
votes: 0


BT in a philosophical mood? :)

Go Google, go, we wanna see where you go!

3:51 pm on Feb 25, 2003 (gmt 0)

Junior Member

10+ Year Member

joined:Mar 26, 2002
posts:83
votes: 0


Maybe they are the last free-inclusion engine BECAUSE they are not public. Is "successful public free-inclusion search engine" a triple oxymoron?

Of course, if Brett has the inside track on friends and family options and can pass some out on this forum, I say "pull the trigger, Google". ;)

3:52 pm on Feb 25, 2003 (gmt 0)

Senior Member

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member

joined:Sept 19, 2000
posts:2501
votes: 27


Go Google, go, we wanna see where you go!

Status quo with a few clever search enhancements would be just fine with me. Personally, I am very frightened about "where" Google may go. I hope it stays put and remains pretty much as is. Not likely ... but one can wish!

I absolutely hate PPC programmes and have no wish to get involved with them.

4:15 pm on Feb 25, 2003 (gmt 0)

Senior Member

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member

joined:June 29, 2001
posts:2145
votes: 0


I am going to start a chant...

NO IPO, NO IPO

I like Google too much to see it ruined by thousands of shareholders demanding a better and quicker return.

4:16 pm on Feb 25, 2003 (gmt 0)

Administrator from US 

WebmasterWorld Administrator brett_tabke is a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member Top Contributors Of The Month

joined:Sept 21, 1999
posts:38257
votes: 115


With random surfing dying [webmasterworld.com], the search engines are the new traffic cops. This consoladates all the power into 3-4 hands. Whew, that's alot of power to direct the future of the internet.

[edited by: Brett_Tabke at 4:42 pm (utc) on Feb. 25, 2003]

4:20 pm on Feb 25, 2003 (gmt 0)

Senior Member

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member

joined:July 8, 2002
posts:1157
votes: 0


GoogleGuy is keeping a very low profile nowadays. Maybe something's cooking up there at Googleplex.
4:30 pm on Feb 25, 2003 (gmt 0)

Junior Member

10+ Year Member

joined:Mar 20, 2002
posts:42
votes: 0


Google please stay pure and retain your Longevity....

I absolutely hate PPC programmes and have no wish to get involved with them.

Seconded.

4:33 pm on Feb 25, 2003 (gmt 0)

Senior Member

WebmasterWorld Senior Member korkus2000 is a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member

joined:Mar 20, 2002
posts:3732
votes: 0


Isn't there a quiet period before a company goes public?
4:39 pm on Feb 25, 2003 (gmt 0)

Senior Member

WebmasterWorld Senior Member heini is a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member

joined:Jan 31, 2001
posts:4404
votes: 0


From a point of view of branding for websearch the OV shopping spree is probably nothing but good news for Google.

In the current worldwide environment Google doesn't need any portal. They are totally independant.
Were it not for the VC background they could just lean back and work on developing their websearch.

4:46 pm on Feb 25, 2003 (gmt 0)

Senior Member

WebmasterWorld Senior Member ciml is a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member

joined:June 22, 2001
posts:3805
votes: 2


If Web search is to be dominated by one engine, then I just hope that Google's founders get to keep a firm grip.
4:49 pm on Feb 25, 2003 (gmt 0)

Senior Member

WebmasterWorld Senior Member jeremy_goodrich is a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member

joined:Aug 4, 2000
posts:3468
votes: 0


Good point, ciml. The founders of Google seem to have very different inclinations...such as using algorithms instead of cash only to determine results. :)

Hopefully that will stay their long term goal, and not take a back seat to a quick buck when the IPO happens.

5:37 pm on Feb 25, 2003 (gmt 0)

New User

10+ Year Member

joined:Feb 25, 2003
posts:3
votes: 0


The founders of Google seem to have very different inclinations...such as using algorithms instead of cash only to determine results. :) Hopefully that will stay their long term goal, and not take a back seat to a quick buck when the IPO happens.

I wish that were the case. I've seen way to many company's to a complete change once they go public. The almighty shareholder return on investment becomes the primary goal, with all other altruistic values taking a back seat.

5:46 pm on Feb 25, 2003 (gmt 0)

Senior Member

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member

joined:July 8, 2000
posts:684
votes: 0


Brett,

Wouldn't you say that the "Entry" points to the web are the "real" traffic cops?

He who controls how the Internet user connects, has a good chance of controlling what search index is used. Or at least, trying to influence that decision.

MSN8 campaign is a good example of this.....

Google may be publicly Cool, but MSN8 is trying to come on as "All Kinds Of Cool"... Public perception is everything, remember the Saturn automotive ads, when they first fired up?

If AOL/MSN/SBC/Quest control 80% of the broadband/dial-up connectivity, that doesn't sit too well, long run (Overture/AV/FAST), for the rest in the US market?

6:06 pm on Feb 25, 2003 (gmt 0)

Senior Member

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member

joined:Apr 8, 2002
posts:2015
votes: 0


>Wouldn't you say that the "Entry" points to the web are the "real" traffic cops?

psss ... redzone, don't wake up the sleeping dogs.

6:09 pm on Feb 25, 2003 (gmt 0)

Senior Member

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member

joined:May 13, 2002
posts:676
votes: 0


Well Google - you are it. The undisputed last free inclusion search engine on the net.

I don't see it that way at all. If anything, it appears we've got a NEW free inclusion location.

According to the article, OV plans on offering three products: Pay for position, pay for inclusion, and algorithmic Web search. It's not clear how they will be all mixed together, but I'd expect one of these two things to be in effect.

POSSIBLE 1:
OV goes toe-to-toe with Google. They take the AV name and put their PFP (pay for placement) results on the page similar to adwords. The main results are from the FAST/AV hybrid they are working on. In this scenario, you're "paying for freshness", not really inclusion. One of the bots will go out for free once a month (or whenever) and crawl everything it can get it's hands on. Another bot will handle the "paid inclusion" pages and will crawl on a more frequent schedule (rather like the freshbot works now - except your wallet controls which pages and when).

POSSIBLE 2:
OV goes the way MSN is working now, with three sets of results. Set 1 (Featured sites) are you OV PFP listings. The next batch will be off the PFI crawl (MSN has Looksmart listings, OV would have "fresh crawled and featured" listings). Then for backfill, where MSN uses INK (in it's current state, anyway) OV will have the free crawl listings.

I think #2 is more likely, but they just MIGHT have the stones to go do a full frontal attack on Google. <shrug> We'll see. Suffice it to say that I'm convinced that, based on the article, there will be a FREE INCLUSION factor in the whole OV game.

G.

6:40 pm on Feb 25, 2003 (gmt 0)

Full Member

10+ Year Member

joined:June 13, 2002
posts:213
votes: 0


In my opinion, if Google were to compromise search results
for more profit, folks would soon be looking for an alternative.

And one would show up, just like Google did a few years ago.

Remember not too long ago how people marveled at how fast
Google rose to SE prominence with a virtual absense of
conventional advertising and promotion? I recall a few
threads (not here) discussing just those facts.

Remember, there were plenty of name brand search engines
already with so called entrenched market share existing
before Google came on the scene. How many MBAs do you
think would have predicted today's SE scene back then?

An interesting article I read recently listed the stocks
giving the best shareholder results over the last 25 years.
Not sure, think it was Money or some magazine like that.

Know who won? Southwest Airlines was #1. It gave higher
shareholder return over the last 25 years than any other
public stock according to the magazine article IIRC.

What's interesting about that was the article mentioned
that Southwest Airline's management didn't place maximizing
shareholder return as their #1 priority. In fact, IIRC,
shareholders ranked third. Oh yes, customers ranked only
second place. Employees ranked first. Interesting.

Hope somebody at Google considers such things,

Louis

7:39 pm on Feb 25, 2003 (gmt 0)

Senior Member

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member

joined:Oct 8, 2001
posts:2882
votes: 0


No pressure, right Brett? :)

We're just going to make the best search engine we can--same as it ever was. :)

7:48 pm on Feb 25, 2003 (gmt 0)

Senior Member

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member

joined:May 13, 2002
posts:676
votes: 0


That's an excellent position GoogleGuy. Ford didn't change anything when Mercedes Benz started making trucks. I'll stick with my Ford.

G.

9:05 pm on Feb 25, 2003 (gmt 0)

Senior Member

WebmasterWorld Senior Member rfgdxm1 is a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member

joined:May 12, 2002
posts:4479
votes: 0


>Look around the console there for 2 buttons: one marked ipo, and one marked update - push 'em both.

At least push the update button, dammit! ;) Hmm...I see the fresh tags are gone again. Perhaps the update is close. As for IPO, I'm not sure that would be a good thing. The Google would need to worry about satifying public shareholders along with searchers, and this might not be a good thing.

9:30 pm on Feb 25, 2003 (gmt 0)

Senior Member

joined:July 21, 2000
posts:1402
votes: 0


The best search engine will win - not just money. Even though I roar with laughter at the current antics and love pay to play - I'm not niaive enough to believe that cash is the only way to win this war. The real rulers in this game is Mr/Mrs/Ms Surfer - they will go where they want to. As long as they are happy with the results.

All the PPC/PFI players need to keep their eye on the people who are really earning them income. It isn't people like me, in the long term - it is the public!

10:36 pm on Feb 25, 2003 (gmt 0)

New User

10+ Year Member

joined:Oct 21, 2002
posts:18
votes: 0


Why should and would Google go public?

They have a successful brand/product with a profitability. Going public will only increase the tension...trying to meet the expectations of shareholders and industry analysts.

Perhaps as the environment changes, Google will have to think more innovatively to find other revenue streams, but even then, IPO doesn't have to be the answer.

Almost always though, going 'corporate' or 'corporatizing' does more harms than goods to a company with fresh-but-vast corporate brain, innovative/creative young professionals, matured/knowledgable managers and a great team of people of science.

Short term...I will join Rugles for his/her chant

NO IPO, NO IPO